Jay Novella

I'm just trying to list some of these limitations to the study.

And also, one thing that I noticed that the VO2 max was estimated.

It wasn't directly measured because to directly measure VO2 max, it's harder.

You've got to feed them the air or the oxygen as they're working out and every –

tiny bit of it is measured and it's not lost to the atmosphere in the room.

So, yeah, it's a little bit harder to do a real VO2 max test, which they did not do in this study.

So they just kind of estimated it from that submaximal life, you know, exercise, you know, exercise bike thing that they did.

So that's another just another limitation of the of this study.

And if they do it again, maybe they could try to get this information.

But then I just wanted to put that out there.

OK, so now the study conclusions.

And I wanted to say here that I rarely get pissed off when I read study conclusions, but this one pissed me off.

It was just very frustrating.

Not that like, oh, it's stupid or wrong.

It's just like, damn, I didn't know that.

What the hell have I been doing?

This is a direct quote from their paper.

The current guideline of 150 minutes per week offers a universal but modest safety margin of approximately 8% to 9% risk reduction, whereas achieving a larger relative risk reduction

Greater than 30% appears to require activity volumes three to four times higher than current max minimums across fitness strata.

So my take on that is that 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous exercise is only associated with an 8% to 9% risk reduction.